I’ve been working on campus carry, really, since 2007. In 2008 I was forced to write some words, in order to get the preemption bill passed, that recognized the right of the universities to regulate firearms on their campuses. I have felt shitty about that since then. The best thing about S1254 (besides adding one more blade to the swiss army knife-like enhanced license) is that the language I wrote in 2008 is repealed. My sin was washed away today.
There is really a lot less than meets the eye to S1254. The colleges and universities were never granted authority to do something that was really none of their business in the first place and they didn’t even bother to provide any security to make sure that their policy was followed. The institutions pretended they had the authority to adopt policies banning guns. They were never willing to negotiate with people who felt they should be allowed to have a choice to carry a concealed weapon while on campus; they thought they could win through sheer bluster as they had before, and this is what they got for their arrogance. The people of Idaho and the legislature have decided that they want uniform firearms rules across the state. The private non-criminal behavior of adults who choose a means to defend themselves against rape, robbery, etc. is no more a legitimate concern of college administrators than it is of city or county governments. One final thought: If the universities were truly committed to making their campuses gun free zones why haven’t any of them deployed metal detectors and the whole panoply of security we are familiar with at the airport and other secured locations? They knew how to truly banish guns if they had wanted to and yet they chose to protect their campuses from the “menace” of firearms with a piece of paper that only the law-abiding would respect.
“They knew how to truly banish guns if they had wanted to and yet they chose to protect their campuses from the “menace” of firearms with a piece of paper that only the law-abiding would respect.”
Addressing other jurisdictions and not Idaho alone, and they would raise holy hell if the body armor they were issued was actually made out of cardboard, yet cardboard body armor has the same protective effect as a TRO or law printed on a sheet of paper. I’m not quite sure if this alone arises to the level of hypocrisy, but it certainly would reveal a, “for me but not for thee attitude.”
As a board member for Florida Carry, I totally get the discomfort one feels for having to help craft language for a bill that you disagree with, but realize is the only way to get a broader bill passed.
I *hate* politics enough as it is, being *part* of the process makes my skin crawl. But it has to happen, and yes you feel dirty and then have to watch members and non members alike attack your group because you “support” something you truly do not (and cannot publicly state).
And when it all comes together at the end, there is a feeling of relief.
“The private non-criminal behavior of adults who choose a means to defend themselves against rape, robbery, etc. is no more a legitimate concern of college administrators than it is of city or county governments.”
Absolutely. I’m sure I will quote you more than once on this.
This is good news. I happen to know that staff and students at at least one Idaho college and one university have carried for years, with no body count to show for it.
This hits every point we’ve been trying to make up here. The University of Alaska Board of Regents is trying to scuttle our bill with a fiscal note claiming they will need $450K to do a “study” to see where security is needed and more money to install it. They and the bill’s opponents keep trying to ignore that carry has been legal everywhere else for 20 years and the policy has had no force of law. Given that, by claiming they will need physical security -now- there are only three conclusions: they are lying, they have been incompetent, and/or they have been negligent.